Monday, 23 February 2015

In this week’s Cornish Guardian, my column will focus on my opposition to the eco-town. It will be as follows:

It is well-known that I have been a persistent critic of plans for a so-called “eco-town” in the China Clay Area. I am unsurprisingly saddened that Cornwall Council has submitted a planning application for an “eco-community” of 1,500 new properties at “West Carclaze.”

The basis of the proposal stems from 2007, when the Labour Government announced a “competition” for landowners and builders to put forward plans for eco-town developments.

There was much fanfare about “green,” “sustainable,” “zero-carbon” and “exemplar” developments, and Imerys set out a proposal for a 5,000-property scheme (spread over five different sites around St Austell and the China Clay Area).

At the time, I was already angry that central government had recently set a ridiculous housing target for the Restormel area of 15,700 new houses over a twenty-year period. But I was further aghast at the undemocratic and top-down nature of the “eco-town” process, which was undermining what was left of the local planning process.

It was and remains my view that it is wrong for central government to decide development priorities in Cornwall.

I produced a detailed report, which opposed the “eco-town.” It was endorsed by Restormel Borough Council and we even presented it to a Government Minister.

Sadly, these local views were ignored and, in July 2009, central government gave the go-ahead to the scheme.

Many of us have questioned whether the development would happen, especially when the Conservative Party’s housing spokesperson said that: “Eco-towns are now dead and buried ... at no point will they meet their twin objectives of being environmentally friendly and tackling the housing shortage.”

But the Conservative-led Coalition Government, and the unitary authority, have since pushed ahead with the “eco-community” development near Penwithick and Stenalees with former Liberal Democrat MP Matthew Taylor at the head of the board set up to promote the project.

Nothing has changed which would win my backing. I consider the proposed development to be just another large housing estate.

It is advertised as a “brown field” development, but a large amount of the housing would actually be built on green fields and they have a wider masterplan to construct a further 300-plus dwellings on green fields between the development and Penwithick.

Many local residents are concerned about the impact on the local infrastructure and it is also the case that the application refuses to even guarantee the future of the iconic skytip near Carluddon. It does not propose to remove the tip, but states that this is only “until more information and other interests come to light.”

Obviously, people who missed the Crowdfunder deadline are still welcome to make donations to the campaign. Cheques made out to Mebyon Kernow can still be sent to Lanhainsworth, Fraddon Hill, Fraddon, St Columb, TR9 6PQ.

My article in this week's Cornish Guardian focussed on tax dodging. It was as follows:

David Cameron recently claimed that no government had done more to tackle tax evasion and regressive tax avoidance than the present Coalition. It is a claim that does not stand up to scrutiny.

I am appalled at the number of large corporations and wealthy individuals who continue to do all they can to evade tax (illegal) and to aggressively avoid tax (apparently not illegal). And I am saddened at the failure of central government and HMRC to more forcefully take on the tax cheats.

Indeed, recent research by Tax Research LLP, on behalf of the Public and Commercial Services Union, shows that “the difference between the tax that should be paid in the UK if the tax system worked as parliament and HMRC intended, and the amount actually paid” was £119 billion in 2013-14.

At a time, when the austerity agenda of the Westminster parties means less and less money for so many of our vital public services, it does show that – when it comes to tax – the super-rich are treated very differently to the rest of us on PAYE.

This has been demonstrated through the scandal surrounding the HSBC bank, whose Swiss private bank helped clients to serially evade tax on, what one newspaper described as, an “industrial scale.” And, according to a whistleblower and financial authorities in France, the UK government had known about the scandal since 2010 but done nothing.

Challenged in the House of Commons last week, the Prime Minister – with no sense of irony whatsoever – evaded and avoided all the questions that were put to him.

The HMRC has meanwhile reported that two-thirds of those people who had accounts in HSBC’s Swiss bank "were found to be compliant" with UK tax rules. But that means one-third were not. That is truly shocking.

A large number of prominent donors to the Conservative and Labour Parties have been caught up in the scandal. One was Tory peer Stanley Fink. A former Treasurer of the Party, he admitted that he had taken steps to reduce his tax bill but claimed that “everyone” was involved in tax avoidance.

In a separate development, a prominent newspaper has reported that a number of multi-millionaires “who have donated nearly £10 million” to the Conservatives are now being investigated because of a range of tax avoidance schemes. They have been described as “two peers, one knight and some of the City’s wealthiest financiers.”

It is time that a much harder line was taken against all such tax cheats and I believe that should include many more prosecutions.

It has been
another frantic week and The St Austell Voice newspaper used Shrove Tuesday as
an excuse to “launch” the race to be the next MP for St Austell and Newquay
with a photo-shopped pancake race.

Friday, 13 February 2015

Thanks to everyone who has pledged to the Crowdfunder appeal for my General Election campaign in the St Austell and Newquay constituency. I am extremely grateful for all the support I have received.

The more money we raise, the better the campaign we will be able to fight in St Austell and Newquay. If you haven't pledged yet, please consider boosting MK's campaign and help us take on the establishment parties.

You will be aware that, this week, the BBC Trust has denied MK’s call for a Party Election Broadcast. It means that I will be the only candidate in the St Austell and Newquay seat whose Party will be denied a television airtime.

And did you know that in the 2010 General Election in this seat – between January 1st 2010 and polling day on May 6th – the Conservative candidate spent £40,968, while the Liberal Democrat candidate spent £33,852. And that in the period leading up to 2010, they also spent many tens of thousands of pounds.

That is what we are up against.Help us to promote an alternative to politics as usual.

The Crowdfunder appeal will only be live for another four days – please support this appeal if you can.

On Wednesday night, I was pleased to be attend a packed meeting at Trethurgy Village Hall where local people came together to set out their opposition to the proposed “eco-community” at West Carclaze.

The local Cornwall Councillor is my good friend Matt Luke and we have both made it clear that we oppose the possible development of land to the south of Penwithick for a so-called “eco-community.”

Matt is working hard to bring together the views of local people so that they are fully taken into account when Cornwall Council considers the planning application in a few month’s time.

Looking back, I am proud that in 2008 I was able to produce a detailed report, which opposed the development and condemned the “undemocratic and top-down” approach of the-then Labour Government.

The document also condemned the high housing growth being imposed on the China Clay Area – which, in previous years, had had more development than any other part of Cornwall. It was endorsed by Restormel Borough Council and the document presented to a Government Minister. Sadly, these local views were ignored and, in July 2009, the principle of an eco-town was agreed by central government.

Many people have questioned whether the development would happen, especially when the Conservative Party’s housing spokesperson said that: “Eco-towns are now dead and buried ... at no point will they meet their twin objectives of being environmentally friendly and tackling the housing shortage.”

But the Coalition Government and Cornwall Council have pushed ahead with a scheme for an “eco-community” at West Carclaze for 1,500 new dwellings.

Though advertised as a “brown field” development, a large amount of the housing would actually be built on green fields. The application also contains a wider masterplan, which includes an additional 300-plus dwellings that could be built on green fields between the development and Penwithick. And the amount of affordable housing could be as low as 30%.

It is also the case that application refuses to guarantee the future of the skytip near Carluddon. The actual application does not propose to remove the tip. It states that there will be “no change,” but only “until more information and other interests come to light.”

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

It is with great sadness - but not a great deal of surprise - that I have been informed by the BBC Trust that they will not be allowing MK to have a Party Election Broadcast at the forthcoming General Election.

The Trust has chosen not to change its existing guidelines that, to get a PEB, Mebyon Kernow would need to stand in one-sixth of the seats in “England.”

In its representation, Mebyon Kernow rightly pointed out:

“We consider this recommendation, which would deny Mebyon Kernow airtime, is both absurd and undemocratic. How can it be fair that MK, a Cornish political party, would need to stand in all six seats within the historic nation of Cornwall, as well as a further 83 seats outside of Cornwall, in order to be allowed a broadcast?

“We believe it is wrong to exclude a political party from being allowed a PEB when it is standing in all constituencies reasonably available to it. By contrast, the recommendation would mean that political parties in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would only have to stand in three, ten and seven seats respectively. This has meant that, over recent elections, a host of political parties – including the Christian Party (Wales), Scottish Green Party, Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Trade Union and Socialist Coalition – have all been allocated airtime.”

The decision of the BBC Trust was as follows:

The Committee considered whether, in light of the relevant information before them, including the responses received in the course of the consultation, the comments of the Executive, and confidential and privileged legal advice, the draft Allocation Criteria needed to be amended to allow for regional broadcasts generally, or specifically to allow Mebyon Kernow to have access to a PEB. The Committee's conclusions on the specific issues raised by this question were as follows.

The Committee recognised that, given that the broadcasting region and the hypothetical electoral region do not match, there would be substantial “overspill”, i.e. that voters outside the areas where Mebyon Kernow candidates are standing would receive any regional PEBs, including from parties for whom they could not vote, and this would risk discrediting PEBs, creating viewer and listener indifference, and inducing “PEB fatigue”. They also recognised that where there is no match there is the risk that viewers and listeners within the regional electoral area would not be within the broadcast area in which the regional PEB could be received. It was noted that Cornwall is much smaller than the relevant BBC television broadcasting region (the South West), and applying the threshold criterion to the South West would still not qualify Mebyon Kernow for a PEB. The Committee also took into account, in considering whether the criterion should be amended, the information available about the level of electoral support for Mebyon Kernow, which it did not consider to be substantial (as substantial electoral support might, in theory, suggest it should qualify for a PEB if the one-sixth threshold criterion were removed).

The Committee noted that BBC One HD and BBC Two do not broadcast on a regional basis. Only BBC One in standard definition broadcasts on a regional basis. Therefore, if there were to be regional PEBs, viewers of BBC One HD and BBC Two would receive the national PEBs but not the regional ones of relevance to them.

Further, they noted that, if there were regional PEBs, national parties might feel it necessary to produce both national and regional PEBs (e.g. to meet the arguments of regional parties), and that that could cause practical (e.g. resource) difficulties for national parties, some of which might feel disadvantaged as a result, in particular smaller parties.

The Committee observed that there would be difficulties for broadcasters in identifying and defining hypothetical regional electoral areas. From this perspective, the cases of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were materially different from that of an English region, given the recognised boundaries of those nations and their constitutionally separate identities.

The Committee considered the possibility that regional PEBs could be carried on appropriate local radio stations. They recognised that in some areas the transmission areas of local radio might more accurately match hypothetical regional electoral areas and that this might counter the objections (see above) that some viewers or listeners might receive PEBs not intended for them, and vice versa. However, they also acknowledged that several difficulties remained, including—

- while the match between electoral areas and local radio transmission areas might be good in some areas, that was not the case in all parts of England or the UK;- it might be argued as wrong in principle for regional PEBs to be carried on local radio and not on television (but broadcasting on television poses the problems referred to above);- there would be questions as to how the BBC would satisfy its impartiality obligations in its services if local radio stations carried only regional, and not national, PEBs.- national parties might feel the need to produce local radio PEBs, causing practical difficulties and raising the risk that they would feel disadvantaged if they were practically unable to do so (see above).

The Committee considered the terms of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, noting that the UK Government had recently recognised “the Cornish people” (not Mebyon Kernow itself) as a national minority. The Committee did not consider that the draft criteria placed the UK in breach of any obligations in the Convention, and that the Convention should not alter their conclusion that (for the reasons stated) the criteria were rational and justifiable.

The Committee also took account of the fact that PEBs are not the only medium by which political parties can put their views across to voters. For example, the BBC's 2015 Election Guidelines (which remain open for consultation until 11 February 20152) provide in relation to smaller parties that parties standing in less than one-sixth of the seats in an area but running serious campaigns are to receive coverage in English regions, on local radio and online. In addition it is of course open to regional parties to make use of the internet, and in particular, social media.

As well as having regard to the views expressed by the Electoral Commission in responding to the Trust consultation, the Committee also had regard to the views of the Electoral Commission in its report Standing for Election, published in January 2015, which concluded that the UK-wide criteria for PEBs are working well and did not suggest any need for immediate change. However the Electoral Commission also stated:

“We also appreciate the clear problems expressed by the broadcasters in making provision for separate PEBs in different English regions, including for Mayoral elections, outside London. However, this also presents the risk of smaller parties or independent candidates that command significant support in a particular area being disadvantaged. Whilst we agree that provision for PEBs on this basis is not practicable at this stage, broadcasters should keep under review technological developments that may make such provision more feasible in the future.”

The Committee agreed the technological developments should be kept under review.

The Committee decided in light of the relevant information before it that the draft Allocation Criteria should not be amended to allow for regional broadcasts generally, or specifically in Cornwall.

Monday, 9 February 2015

I have today challenged all political parties putting forward candidates in Cornwall at the coming General Election to ensure that all their election leaflets are printed locally.

I can confirm – of course – that every single piece of MK literature for the General Election will be printed here in Cornwall. We believe it is important that, at this time, political parties should be supporting local printing businesses with their custom.

But is disappointing that some other parties are not having their printing work done in Cornwall.

In the St Austell and Newquay seat, I have come across Conservative leaflets printed in Bristol, London and Somerset, Liberal Democrat leaflets printed in Hampshire, Lincolnshire, London and Portsmouth, and a UKIP leaflet also printed in London.

By contrast, we are presently delivering a campaign newsletter across the constituency, which was printed in Lostwithiel.

Saturday, 7 February 2015

It was great to be out, this morning, delivering our campaign newsletter in St Stephen and Treviscoe.

Leafletting in Treviscoe: Brian, Matt and George

I would like to say thank you to all those MK members who have been out in recent days delivering our campaign newsletter in places such as Newquay, Roche and St Columb Minor, as well as those members who have taken leaflets to deliver iin their home areas of the constituency.

If you would like to help out with the leafleting, why not give me a call on 07791 876607.

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

Thanks to everyone who has pledged to the Crowdfunder appeal for my General Election campaign in the St Austell and Newquay constituency.

We are now up to £1,410 and I have also received a further £350 of cheques through the post.

Though we passed our initial target quite quickly, we do have a “stretch target” of £3,000. Every penny that we raise will go towards getting MK’s message out across the St Austell and Newquay seat.

If you haven't pledged yet, please consider helping MK's campaign in Mid Cornwall. With your help, we can produce extra leaflets as well as window posters and poster boards (see below) which we can spread across the seat and show that MK means business.

All support is much appreciated and the Crowdfunder appeal can be accessed at:

The incinerator at St Dennis is in the news again when, on Monday, with one of the two 100m high chimneys began to sway. Concern is rightly being expressed by local people, who are extremely worried and know that the final height of the chimney will be further 20m higher.

In the meantime, Rod Toms had the following letter published in the Cornish Guardian.

About 250 years ago, a French Chemist Antoine Lavoisier discovered the truth about the process of combustion. There is no magic stuff called Pholgiston, he discovered that when things burn they combine with oxygen to produce ash and gaseous products that escape with the smoke.

Now in the 21st Century another bunch of Frenchmen called Sita are denying the truth of this research. Until they were banned by the Advertising Standards Authority, their first advertising booklet said "Nothing comes out of the chimney"!

There are two reasons for telling you this, the first is that shortly the ghastly twin stacks of the incinerator will rise to an incredible 400 feet over a major European Special Area of Conservation on Goss Moor ready to release 22 tonnes per hour of combustion products over the landscape and farms below, and secondly to point out that some of the Political Parties who played a key role in forcing this monstrosity on the public are now asking for support in the coming election.

The Liberal Democrats controlled Cornwall County Council in the days before Unitary and hatched up the idea, and in the first administration of the new Cornwall Council the Tories were hell bent on making sure that it could not be stopped. One of their candidates even chaired the committee that refused to challenge the contract. And of course the wonderful "Environmentally Green" Coalition Minister Eric Pickles put his rubber stamp on it after the Public Inquiry. The Labour party are fully backing Incinerators (I think on the misguided theory that they bring jobs) and I don't think UKIP can find the fag packet they wrote the policy on as they probably burnt it.

During the Public Inquiry (which went on for over six months), the Greens were conspicuous by their absence, but there was one man who was present every day. He stood up and spoke for the local people and took flack from QCs on £1,000 per day without flinching and defended the Community, the countryside and the livelihoods of the farmers. That man was Dick Cole the Leader of Mebyon Kernow.

So when you see those two fingers going up to Cornwall, and when you realise that waste will have to be trucked into Cornwall to keep the fires burning, remember on May 7th. who put it there, and who tried to stop it.

Thank you for your kind words, Rod. I am extremely proud of the role I played in opposing the incinerator and was privileged to be able to produce the 33,000 word “proof-of-evidence” and represent the local community. But for the record, while I did attend the vast majority of days at the Public Inquiry, because of other commitments, I did miss a few days.

My article in today’s Cornish Guardian looks back at the recent “County Hall” debate on the “Case for Cornwall.” It is as follows:

On Tuesday 20th January, the leadership of the unitary authority put forward a document, titled the “Case for Cornwall,” to a meeting of all elected councillors.

We were told that, following the Scottish independence referendum and the heightening of discussions about devolution for all parts of the UK, it was important for Cornwall to set out “ambitious” demands for more powers.

But I was greatly disappointed, because the “Case for Cornwall” is not actually that ambitious at all. It did not make the case for a far-reaching new democratic settlement for our area, as was delivered in Wales and Scotland in the late 1990s. It simply sought a few limited extra powers for our one principal local authority.

The document did not even seek to combat the influence of the growing number of unelected groups and boards, which are taking political and economic power away from those who have been elected democratically.

And to look at the example of planning, the document sought some additional controls over renewable energy developments and an “infrastructure planning and delivery mechanism” – which I interpreted as yet another unaccountable “board.”

I told the meeting that we needed to bold and that we should be going much, much further. Surely we should be making the case for all decisions relating to planning to be made in Cornwall, which would include the right to produce our own Cornish National Planning Policy Framework and the right to set our own housing targets – without interference from central government – and to ensure that the planning appeal process is also Cornwall-based.

I did move an amendment that the document be strengthened and the option of a Cornish Assembly be included, but this was not supported at the meeting.

Soon after this vote took place, the Prime Minister was in Cornwall promoting an additional allocation of funds to Cornwall’s “growth deal” – though critics said most of the money had already been announced.

David Cameron had a lot to say about “giving local communities the power and the money,” and described the funding announcement as being about “genuine devolution.”

But the reality is that responsibility for the “Growth Deal” will fall to the unelected and unaccountable Local Enterprise Partnership. And it was also around this time that the Coalition announced it had done a U-turn, and was centralising administrative control over the next programme of EU funding away from Cornwall.

So much for democratic devolution in what presently passes for Coalition Britain.

Monday, 2 February 2015

It is well-known that I have been a persistent critic of plans for an eco-town near St Austell. This can be demonstrated by looking back through the pages of this blog.

The application for 1,500 houses has now been submitted and I will, in the coming weeks, be having a lot to say about the proposal.

But for the time being, I have looked back at some of my previous blog entries to “set the scene.” Here are few extracts, with links to the full blog entries:

Restormel’s view of the eco-town

“As the Chairman of Restormel’s Policy and Scrutiny Committee 4, I wrote a draft response to the Government’s document ‘Eco-towns – Living a Greener Future’ with the support of my Vice-Chairman Tim Jones. It was modified, and in some ways improved, with the support of the officers of the Council.

“It was then presented to the Council’s cabinet on Monday evening.

“Five pages long, it is quite a hard-hitting document. It criticises the likely imposition of yet more unsustainable housing on the district, it raises concerns about the impact of the proposals on existing communities, it objects to the ‘top-down’ and undemocratic manner in which central government has handled the whole process, it notes how the eco-town proposal may conflict with local economic regeneration strategies and how the Council has seen no evidence that the development will be an exemplar of environmental technologies. It also raises a considerable number of more detailed concerns and site-specific issues.

“Sadly, the Liberal Democrat dominated cabinet and officers decided that they wished to ‘water down’ this one section of the document.

“Instead of clearly objecting to the proposal, they preferred to say that the ‘Council must be satisfied that the proposed eco-town does not commit the Borough Council or prejudice its position in respect of the objection to the higher levels of housing growth in the panel report … and will only accept the proposition for an eco-town if it helps deliver the employment-led regeneration and all of our other objectives for the area set out in our emerging strategies’.”

“I can report that the cabinet at Restormel Borough Council has backed the call of Policy and Scrutiny Committee 4 (which I chair) to raise objections to the proposed ‘eco-town’ development around St Austell.

“I am especially pleased because the Liberal Democrat dominated cabinet watered down the comments in an earlier committee report which objected to the eco-town.This time around, Policy and Scrutiny 4 had met on 6th January to discuss the new Planning Policy Statement (PPS) on eco-towns and the Sustainability Appraisal of the St Austell proposal. A detailed report on the Imerys proposal, written by myself and Cllr Tim Jones (vice-chairman) was presented to the committee and unanimously endorsed.”

“The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) today confirmed that Imerys’ proposal for a 5,000-property eco-town (spread over six different sites around St Austell and the China Clay Area) has been given the go-ahead.

As a prominent critic of the whole process, it will surprise no-one I consider that the undemocratic and top-down nature of the decision undermines the integrity of the local planning process.

”It remains my view that it is wrong for central government to decide development priorities in Cornwall. Local people and their democratically-elected politicians should be able to decide how much housing is built, where it is constructed and what sites are redeveloped for employment land.”

“It has been interesting to note the comments on the eco-town from my political opponents in recent weeks.#

“Lib Dem PPC Stephen Gilbert claimed that the “eco-town could bring the Clay Area back to life” (I didn’t know it was dead) while Conservative Caroline Righton welcomed the proposals which she described as “ambitious and brave.”

“Labour’s Lee Jameson meanwhile said that “Labour has come though for the people of Cornwall” before criticising the Conservatives and Lib Dems for opposing the scheme. He clearly hasn’t been in the area much in the last few months – if he had been here, he would have seen David Cameron photo-opportunities with Imerys and the Lib Dem Executive of Cornwall Council backing the scheme.

“Matthew Taylor MP is also backing the scheme, which he believes is an alternative to “large-scale piecemeal low quality estates over the next few years to meet the housing needs locally without the jobs and facilities these communities need.” I believe this to be an ill-considered position. Accepting top-down diktats also runs counter to the ‘campaign’ by the MPs against the Regional Spatial Strategy.

“It seems that I have a distinctive position from all the other PPCs and I will endeavour to make sure that I remain true to these principles.”

SITA / Eco-bos / Eden Greenwash “On the 2nd August, I blogged about the most recent days at the Public Inquiry into the incinerator proposed for St Dennis. I focussed on the fact that SITA were claiming the proposed eco-town developments at Drinnick/Nanpean and Blackpool could potentially take the heat from the incinerator.

”This week, the Cornish Guardian featured the links between the eco-town development and its associated company Eco-Bos (74% Orascom, 25% Imerys and 1% Eden Project) and the incinerator on its front page.”